Sentences with phrase «on model sensitivity»

«Over the past 20 years»: Lockwood and Fröhlich (2007); another review: Bard and Frank (2006), on model sensitivity see p. 7.

Not exact matches

The model for the fixed - income style box is based on the two pillars of fixed - income performance: interest - rate sensitivity and credit quality.

Evaluate interest - rate sensitivity of companies based on business model, NPV factors and capital structure

Surely an unplanned blunder on Newsweek's part, but a blunder nonetheless (perhaps worse in the long run exactly because it was unconscious and indicates not deliberate discrimination but a naive lack of sensitivity) A balance of exceptional model elders with equal numbers of average everyday folk would provide a more accurate picture of the aging as they really are, with their very human combinations of merits and faults.

But that is not the case, despite the fact that some models are based on a degree of sensitivity three times greater than others.

When the scientists compared the output of climate models with a decade of satellite measurements of relative humidity, they found that the models that best reproduced observed conditions were built on the premise that climate sensitivity is relatively high — 7 degrees F or more.

«We are currently working on parameter sensitivity analysis and Bayesian calibration of this new model and also on a high resolution regional simulation over the U.S. Corn Belt, all of which would not be possible without the precious computational resources provided by Blue Waters.»

The group hopes other scientists will conduct similar experiments using different models to help hone in on a more reliable measure of climate sensitivity.

You can always count on the weather... to ruin a perfectly good game === Dr Norman Page says: September 14, 2013 at 8:12 am This new sensitivity estimate is merely a minimum tweak to a hopelessly faulty process.The climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions.

However, studies evaluating model performance on key observed processes and paleoclimate evidence suggest that the higher end of sensitivity is more likely, partially conflicting with the studies based on the recent transient observed warming.

On the face of it the range of the IPCC models is centrally within the A&H 90 % range, but visual inspection of Figure 1 suggests that A&H find that there is about a 45 % probability that climate sensitivity is below the lower end of the range quoted by Meehl in August 2004 (Of course the IPCC draft report, which I have not seen, may include models with lower sensitivity than 2.6 ºC).

Climate skeptics tried to embrace Ruddiman simply because his views differed from conventional models — even though on the side of much greater sensitivity to human intervention.

After all, the (secundary) influence of aerosols (on clouds) is included in models too, and its sensitivity is far from certain...

In addition, past data can be used to provide independent estimates of climate sensitivity, which provide a reality check on the models.

A 3 - D model for the Antarctic ice sheet: a sensitivity study on the glacial - interglacial contrast.

Knutson, T.R., and R.E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2 - induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization.

In project on BRAF - mutant melanoma and EGFR - mutant non-small cell lung cancer, we conceived a novel drug sensitivity metric, the DIP rate, that makes it possible to incorporate drug - induced proliferation rates in predictive models of response.

Hourdin, F., et al., 2006: The LMDZ4 general circulation model: Climate performance and sensitivity to parameterized physics with emphasis on tropical convection.

To address this, we present a framework for assessing three dimensions of climate change vulnerability, namely sensitivity, exposure and adaptive capacity; this draws on species» biological traits and their modeled exposure to projected climatic changes.

Given that clouds are known to be the primary source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, how much confidence can you place in a study based on a model that doesn't even attempt to simulate clouds?

There have been quite a number of papers published in recent years concerning «emergent constraints» on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in comprehensive global climate models (GCMs), of both the current (CMIP5) and previous (CMIP3) generations.

Although the strength of this feedback varies somewhat among models, its overall impact on the spread of model climate sensitivities is reduced by lapse rate feedback, which tends to be anti-correlated.

But to reiterate: the difference between climate sensitivity estimates based on land vs. ocean data indicates that something is seriously wrong, either with the model, or the data, or some of both.

The analysis in Crucifix (2006) indicates that there is not a good correlation between sensitivity on the LGM side and sensitivity to 2XCO2 in the selection of models he looked at.

There are multiple real things to discuss about this — the methodology, the relatively small number of cores being used (compared to what could have been analyzed), the age modeling etc. — and many interesting applications — constraints on polar amplification, the mid-Pleistocene transition, the duration and nature of previous interglacials — but unfortunately, the bulk of the attention will be paid to a specific (erroneous) claim about Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) that made it into the abstract and was the lead conclusion in the press release.

On synthetic data, we show that BPT provides higher sensitivity in identifying relevant features from the SMR model than permutation test and stability selection, while retaining strong control on the false positive ratOn synthetic data, we show that BPT provides higher sensitivity in identifying relevant features from the SMR model than permutation test and stability selection, while retaining strong control on the false positive raton the false positive rate.

They conclude, based on study of CMIP5 model output, that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is not a fixed quantity — as temperatures increase, the response is nonlinear, with a smaller effective ECS in the first decades of the experiments, increasing over time.

Because this climate sensitivity is derived from empirical data on how Earth responded to past changes of boundary conditions, including atmospheric composition, our conclusions about limits on fossil fuel emissions can be regarded as largely independent of climate models.

We furthermore suggested that Cluster N is likely to process such light - mediated magnetic compass responses, based on the fact that Cluster N is the only known forebrain area that is highly active during magnetic compass orientation, and on the theoretical model [7] on magnetic field modulation of the light sensitivity of specialized receptor molecules in the retina of the birds, [for detailed arguments see 13], [14].

Research performed on human males with androgen insensitivity syndrome compared to the classical sexual development models which were created from research on rats, indicates that the rat model does not account for the sensitivity of the hypothalamal - hypophyseal - gonadal axis with fluctuations in hormonal levels, namely androgens and estrogens.7

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Robby Müller's work on Saint Jack was so unostentatious in its sensitivity to place, climate, hour of day or night, and the very temperature of colors, it immediately suggested itself as a model of the sort of miraculous cinematography never noticed by A.S.C. Oscar nominators.

A relevant difference is that this model also has active digitizer support, built particularly for Asus» own Z Stylus digitizer with support up to 1024 levels of pressure sensitivity with a 1.2 mm ball tip on the pen.

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of small - scale atmospheric fluctuations on the modeled climate sensitivity to increased CO2 concentration.

When modelling the effect on global temperature, they are using the equivilant of 3.18 deg C equilibriom sensitivity which is par for the course.

This is based on one model, and that model has flaws (especially its temperature sensitivity that seems too great (David Galbraith's work), and its rainfall that seems to low (our PNAS paper PDF).

Model results don't depend critically on resolution — the climate sensitivity of the models is not a function of this in any obvious way, and the patterns of warming seen in coarse resolution models from the 1980s are very similar to those from AR4 or the upcoming AR5 (~ 50 times more horizontal grid points).

Even the admirable Revkin doesn't get it quite right: On horizontal surfaces, observations and modeling show a role for melting in both the baseline ablation and the sensitivity of ablation to precipitation and temperature; melting is the dominant ablation mechanism on vertical ice cliffs; and though Kaser et al find «no evidence» about rising temperatures, it is only because the in situ studies don't cover a long enough period to detect trendOn horizontal surfaces, observations and modeling show a role for melting in both the baseline ablation and the sensitivity of ablation to precipitation and temperature; melting is the dominant ablation mechanism on vertical ice cliffs; and though Kaser et al find «no evidence» about rising temperatures, it is only because the in situ studies don't cover a long enough period to detect trendon vertical ice cliffs; and though Kaser et al find «no evidence» about rising temperatures, it is only because the in situ studies don't cover a long enough period to detect trends.

My experience is that most groups do not «precisely» tune their models to 20th Century trends or climate sensitivity, but given this example and the Hourdin results, more clarity on exactly what is done (whether explicitly or implicitly) is needed.

Myles is on much stronger ground when he argued that the mean model response (~ 3ºC sensitivity) wasn't terribly interesting because it is just a reflection of the basic model they started with before any perturbations, which is true.

Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations oh hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content.

However I have sympathy with Myles Allen feeling aggrieved that he was not informed of the RealClimate post he felt unfair (although I had taken on board the point Myles makes about models producing a wide range of apparent sensitivities).

On a similar issue, the article contains an example of the MPI - Hamburg model being tuned to avoid a 7ºC sensitivity.

This kind of forecast doesn't depend too much on the models at all — it is mainly related to the climate sensitivity which can be constrained independently of the models (i.e. via paleo - climate data), moderated by the thermal inertia of the oceans and assuming the (very likely) continuation of CO2 emissions at present or accelerated rates.

In sensitivity experiments the influence of removed orography of Greenland on the Arctic flow patterns and cyclone tracks during winter have been determined using a global coupled model and a dynamical downscaling with the regional atmospheric model HIRHAM.

Of course, these evaluations rely on the models being able to mimic the sensitivity of the real climate system and assume that paleoclimatic reconstructions of the temperature do adequately describe the past climate variations.

you noted that the sensitivity used in the Hansen model of about 4C per doubling was a little higher than what would be the best guess based on observations.

The link is based on a single modelling sensitivity study (Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002) which looked at only the changes in the indirect effect from the pre-industrial (ca. 1850) to the present day.

Roy Spencer's research appears to have affirmed that models are demonstrably and fatally wrong on the threshold question of climate sensitivity.»

Here we have a bunch of models in very close agreement on CO2 sensitivity, but not even close on precipitation rates.

If a model with a sensitivity of 4.2 deg C / 2xCO2 went a little high (given current understandings of the forcings), and a model with a sensitivity of 3 deg C / 2xCO2 would have been spot on, I think that is support for a sensitivity of around 3 deg C, and that is definitely cause for concern.